As per case facts, petitioners, a facility management company, faced a complaint from a union alleging unfair labour practices, including non-payment of statutory benefits, after some employees allegedly refused transfers ... and abstained from work. The Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint, ruling that petitioners engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, and ordered retrenchment compensation and gratuity. Petitioners appealed, contending employees voluntarily absented, no termination occurred, and Item 9 was incorrectly applied as no award, settlement, or agreement was breached. The question arose whether the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice under Item 9 and the award of compensation and gratuity were legally sustainable given its simultaneous findings that employees were not prevented from working and were not entitled to back wages, and without identifying a specific non-implemented agreement. Finally, the High Court found the Industrial Court's approach inconsistent. It ruled that without a proven prevention from work, termination, or a specific breached agreement, the finding under Item 9 and the awards for retrenchment compensation and gratuity were unsustainable. The High Court also noted reliefs were incorrectly extended to non-parties. Therefore, the High Court quashed the Industrial Court's order regarding Item 9 and compensation, dismissing the complaint in part.